moonslav59

I'm fine with his offensive projection. I'm not happy with subpar D in RF.

I think the days of acquiring a Pedro or Schilling for a couple decent prospects are over. The Sale trade ended up not being so much of a return as thought at the time, due to Moncada and Kopech not doing as well as many expected. The HRam for Beckett plus salary dump Lowell worked for us. Our big FA signings have been a mixed bag with Price and Lackey as the 2 biggest ones. I know signing deGrom or Rodon might have worked like some of the recent ones you just listed, but there are quite a few failures we could lits, too. I didn't see this FA class of SP'ers as being "the one" to splurge on. I thought trading for one made more sense. I'm not happy with Kluber being the only SP'er added, but I like him more than Heaney, Lugo and a few others near the same price. It's going to come down to Whit & Bello with maybe Mata or Sale stepping up. The rest just need to stay healthy and not suck.

My trade was based more on who can play RF on defense better. I think I've made better suggestions than this one.

Well, my domers pulled it out. Big games, tonight: Mich v TCU and GA vs Ohio St. My only hope at winning my bowl pool is for USC and Penn St to win. Even then, I think I can just place second. (I went with So. Carolina over ND!)

There is just no way a comp pick for Devers is acceptable. Lock him up by opening day, or trade him. Everyone knows my preference.

Rafaela is defensively ready, now. He's plus-plus in CF and apparently plus at SS and 2B, too. If he can hit just .675, he's likely going to have a pretty long ML career.

The 13 man pitching staff choices for opening day will surely be influenced by injuries and options remaining. Here are the options remaining. If none are listed, it's zero. SP Sale Paxton Kluber Whitlock 3 Bello Pivetta Crawford 2 Winckowski 2 Seabold 1 Mata 1 Walter 3 Murphy 3 Jansen Martin Houck 2 Schreiber 3 Barnes Joely Brasier Mills 1 Taylor 2 Kelly 3 German 3 DHern 1 Ort 2

I'd rather have a real RF'er with 3 years of control over our 4th LF'er with 2 years of control. Age only matters, if the controllable years are the same or outside of prime. (I guess you could say Yaz's years are all outside prime, so point well taken.)

There were also serious doubts about Lester's ability to comeback from cancer. I'm glad we stuck with him, and he thanked Boston for sticking with him as he battled cancer. Maybe sticking with some of our yong pitchers now, will lead to some good stories, even if not on the level Lester reached with us. I don't get the need to bash our own players before they get a real chance to show their skillset. It reminds me of Swihart saying he loves the Sox but hated on 37 out of the 40 guys on the roster, plus the manager, coaches, GM and owner. Brasier is another story. Have at him!

No, I think most of the best players struggled early in their ML careers, at some point. Maybe year 2 for some, but most struggle, and my point made was not that Wink and Seabold are comparable to Pedey, but that deciding so early is often a mistake. BTW, Bogey had an even longer waiting period than Pedey. .241 with a .662 OPS after his first 644 PAs. He then went .651 in his first 125 PAs of 2015. That's about .660 after780 PAs. .754 Dalbec in his 898 career PAs. .676 Cordero in his 726 career PAs. .622 Duran in his career 335 PAs. Again, I'm not projecting greatness, especially on the level of Pedey or Bogey, but totally giving up on anyone can end up being a mistake. Take Dalbec, it would have been a mistake to give up on him in 2021, but then it looked like we gave him too long of a chance in '22. It's not an easy call. I think Wink, Crawford and Seabold all deserve another significant chance before we cut ties with them, but probably not on the opening day roster, unless they look sharp in ST'ing. I don't doubt the odds are against Wink and Seabold becoming even decent role players, but giving up so early, after tiny sample sizes is not winning strategy, either.

One might same the same about us and Brasier.

He'll sure be huffing and puffing, if they do suck.

I don't have much faith in either one, either. I like Crawford's chances better, but many good players start out, slowly. I'm sure glad the Sox never gave up on Pedroia after his slow start that extended much longer than Wink & Seabolds. .561 in 98 PAs in 2006 (31 games) .603 in first 75 PAs of 2007 (23 games)

Maybe, the plan is to develop SP'ers within the system: Bello, Mata, Walter... Our history has certainly not supported this method, but the long term affects of signing and extending Price and Sale might be what changed their methodology. I'm not defending it. It will take some time to see, if it works, and patience is running thin in Sox Nation, already.

Worse, he blames Cashman for poor roster construction just weeks from saying their roster is the best.

I agree. I'd rather have quality than quantity, but if you look at history, almost every winning team had 20 or 30+ starts from their 6th, 7th or more starter depth. It is important, and I think our SP'er depth strength and numbers are the best I've seen in a long time. Of course, I wish we had a better starting 5 than we do. Adding a solid #1 or #2 has been a top priority of mine for several years in a row. It's been my biggest criticism of our roster construction since the Sale trade. I'm also not happy we spent over half our winter spending on a DH/LF'er and DH/3B-1Bman, while adding just Kluber to the staff and pretty much forcing the Whitlock move from the pen to the rotation. Starter depth is a good thing, and it may be needed more with the starting 6 we have, right now, but I do wish we had a better starting 5, even if it meant a weaker 6-10.

...and he raves about the solid Yankee staff and roster, until they start sucking, every year.

Having a stronger pen will help the rotation. It's also a deeper pen, which should allow Cora to pull the starters earlier, if needed than in '21 or '22. Not having a longman like Whitlock, in the pen, might hurt some. I really like our starter depth, this year. I'm high on Mata and Walter and still have hopes that one from Crawford, Wink and Seabold will take step up in '23. Then, there is Murphy, who might be pen depth.

Soxprospects.com has a future rosters page and omitted McGuire, too. Here's what they have, but I added McGuire: 2025 SP: Sale, Whitlock, Bello, Mata, Walter Pen: Houck, Schreiber, Kelly, German, Crawford, Wink, Murphy, Mills C: McGuire, Wong, Hickey 1B: Casas, Kavadas 2B: Story, EValdez SS: Mayer, Bonaci 3B: Dalbec, Lugo, Jordan LF: Yoshida CF: Rafaela RF: Duran, Abreu DH: Yorke 2026: replace___ with _____ Sale w Wikelman/Perales Duran w Bleis Add to bench: Romero, Anthony, Paulino

The Yanks still seem reluctant to go the extra mile, although the winter is still not over. They need a LF'er can some were out there. While it's commendable they have improved their team without parting with very top prospects, when they fall short, we'll hear more about that.

The thing I find most interesting is that one could look at the winter signings before 2021 as worse or equal to those before 2022: 2021: 10 Richards (8 Ottavino via trade) 7 Kike 5 Perez 3 Renfroe 3 Marwin 2 Andriese 1.5 Sawamura 2022 22 Story (12 JBJ via trade) 7 Wacha 6 Paxton 5 Hill 4 Diekman 3 Strahm 2 Robles

McGuire has 3 years of control. I'm not sure how far out your list is, but he's our catcher for 3 more years. If this list is beyond 3 years, then Bleis and others should be on it. Also,... (I know you did not list RPers) 5 years: Houck, Kelly & German 4 years: Schreiber 3 years: Joely, Taylor

The problem is, bringing back Nate, Wacha and Hill would not have projected us to be any better in 2023 than 2022, and their ages and flukiness on the 2022 numbers actually hinted at them being worse or much worse in 2023, let alone beyond. I agree, we did need to replace them "in kind," but adding Whitlock and a full year of Bello is a significant replacement to part of what was lost. Remember, Nate, Wacha and Hill started 69 games. That's really only 2 SP'ers worth of starts needing replacement, and 20 more starts from Whitlock and Bello equals 40, and 29 from Kluber = 69. The biggest contracts given to FA SP'ers, this winter, are not the kind I would have supported us adding. When we signed Price, I knew we paid too much and for too long, but he was a solid ace who projected to give us 3-5 very good to great seasons. I do not see that from this year's crop. I had hoped we'd bite the bullet and trade a top prospect or two for a controllable ace or solid #2, but it doesn't look like the prospect trade moratorium has been lifted, and may never be lifted, again. Within the context of knowing we have a limited budget and will continue resetting every 1-2 years, I'm glad we didn't sign deGrom or Rodon. Maybe some of these aging stars on 1-2 year deals could have been doable, but I think the Kluber signing was one of the best value signings, this winter, and since we are resetting, it makes sense. I hope we are not done for the winter. We can afford to sign Andrus and Wacha, and maybe even Fulmer, too. Let's do it!

Whitlock has 9 career GS'd and has seen his role jerked around a bit more than I'd like to have seen. I think the "not sure why it doesn't translate" is based on too small a sample size, but certainly, I have concerns about moving him out of a role, he seemed to flourish in- long relief in high leverage situations. I'm not counting on Sale or Paxton for anything. I do think they may reach 32-33 GS'd, combined, but counting on even that may be more wishful thinking that anything based on logic or trends. If Pivetta remains our #5, he one of the best #5's in MLB, hands-down. If we need him to be our #3, we're in trouble, and with Paxton & Sale needed to get 33 starts between them to make that happen, it looks like he might be our #4, before the season even starts. Kluber would be fine as a #4, but the same worries about him moving up to #3- as Pivetta to #4 are there. If he's the #4, we'll have a plus- not a minus vs most teams at #4. Whitlock and Bello are both the keys, but we might also see a boost from just one, maybe two, from this long list of young rotation depth: Mata Walter Crawford Murphy Winckowski Seabold (Drohan/Santos or Houck in a pinch) I realize some on this list have already been tried without seeing much promise, but we don't need 5-6 of these guys to step up- just one or two... maybe. I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. You hated our 2021 rotation from day one. You hated our 2022 rotation from day one, and Wacha & Hill did way better than you and many others expected. Your track record is something that actually gives us hope, if you say the rotation sucks.

I fully understand this, and my point was that the concern about losing money, and watching attendance and viewership drop, not just for the Sox, but all of MLB is directly related to keeping fans happy and interested, or at the very least, Hopeful. Doing things to upset fans or cause them to lose hope, or in my more colorful words- make them cry- helped cause upper management to decide not to have, even a mini fire sale larger than dealing Vaz away. IMO I'm not sure it worked to heighten fan hopes, and it seemed like many fans were pissed at trading Vaz and the way they handled that trade, but on paper, the guys we acquired vs giving up did better in 2022 and look more hopeful going forward than Groome. My point now is that that choice back-fired on them, and fans got pissed, anyway- just a few months later. As s***** as the team did after the deadline, I'm not sure they made any more money than had they traded away just JD, but that is in hindsight. I get why they did what they did, but I still disagree. I get why they gave up on Ben's plan, when they did. At that time, I hoped for at least one more year at trying a plan for sustainable and consistent winning, but 3 last place finishes in 4 years had the fans on edge, and management felt they needed to "win now" or risk losing the golden goose for good. They may make the same choice, again, but I think they learned a lesson from the DD era. I think we are seeing a bit more patience, this time, with the long term plan, but clearly the idea to try and keep winning, now, is part of the difficult balancing act, It's not an easy choice to make. Some teams who get to that point did so by tanking for several years (Hou & TBR come to mind), while some teams keep the focus on the farm while spending much more than we do, especially over the last 3 years (NYY, LAD.) Teams like the Astros and Braves seem to be the model JH is trying to follow, and if you look at the list of great or key players the Astros have lost over the last 4-5 years, it's shocking, but they had the farm to keep replenishing the big club, made key extensions and signings, most not real long along the way. The only B TV contract severely underwater for the Astros was Altuve, and he is still helping the team on the field. I think BTV, now has him as a plus. It's no fluke the Astros has 6 losing seasons in a row, including 3 in a row with over 105 losses. The Braves had 4 losing seasons in a row around the same time as the Astros, including 3 in a row over with 90 loses. It's a difficult choice to choose the plan to have rebuilding the farm a top priority while still trying to compete on the field, every year. Add to that, the fact that the farm of 5-10 years ago added just Devers, and the farm of 1-5 years ago added just Houck. Then, you have an owner and management group that insists on putting a competitive team on the field while greatly slashing the budget in 2020, not allowing any major prospect trades since the deadline of 2018, and then slowly adding winter spending money over the next 3 winters. All this, while your highest paid player doesn't play. Am I really that crazy to think maybe fan expectations were too high and maybe a bit unreasonable? It doesn't seem like many even give a cursory acknowledgment to the near impossible situation we were in starting in the summer of 2019. The writing was on the wall before 2019, but most felt the window would and should have lasted into 2019 and maybe a year or two beyond.